studentereksamen i engelsk B

Hej.
Er der nogle herinde som vil give mig lidt respons på min stil som jeg skrev til studentereksamen i engelsk B. Bare nogen kommentarer og evt en karakterer.
her er den:

I have chosen section A, which is about smoking. I will give an outline of the different positions on the smoking ban which are presented in the texts. In the first text, written by Robin McKie, there are lots of statistic and facts about smoking. The facts are followed by lots of investigations, in fore example Britain, USA and Italy. The text is very objective, and do not making up one’s mind about smoking, it is only cold facts about people, who are dying of smoking everyday. The conclusion of the text is that the ban will affect the smokers, and the risks of lung and bronchial cancer will be reduced.

In the second text, written by A.N. Wilson it is about the tobaccos history in Britain. A.N. Wilson looks back to the past, and concludes that most of the famous men in Britain’s history smoked. Only one famous man was non-smoker among the great story English poets or novelist of the last 4 centuries (from 1970). There is a description of how the ban affects the people in Britain nowadays, and there is a example with Tennyson who “staring smokey babies” and that would have cost the publican 1200 pound and Tennyson 600 pound!.

An important fact in the text, is also who actually introduced tobacco to England? It was Sir Walter Smith, and it was the start of the English literature and all the following poets and novelists smoked. The text is objective, with all the history of the smoking culture, but there is also a subjective angle. A.N. Wilson has a view of how smoking affects him. His view is, that he does not really care of anyone smokes or not, and furthermore he says that he smokes in phases, but then he give up. He has a last good view of the smoking ban in Britain, he says that it is not the government, who should decide, whether the publicans of England should smoke or not, it is the public who should decide it.

In the third and last text, written by Simon Jenkins (abbreviated to SJ), there is a discussion, whether it is reasonably to make a smoking ban. Simon Jenkins has his own view of the situation. He is against smoking, and said that half of Britain would be smoke-free after the smoking ban. SJ also mean that the government was to slow to see the smoking problem, but on the other hand there should be an agreement, between the government and those who smokes, about the smoking ban.


So the conclusion of the third text will be that it is a good decision to make a smoking ban, because it will save lives in the end. On the other hand, it will undoubfully have consequences, like protest
against the government. In the third text there are lots of examples of exaggeration and irony. An example for instants is; line 22-24 page 6: “Unpleasant too is fuming traffic, noisy neightbours, swearing youths and cruel parents. All may lead to death. We do not ban them, yet”. It is ironic because he also sees stuff like the traffic and things like that banned, and then everything in Britain is banned. Another example is fore example line 29-30: “How long before the inspector is knocking at every house door and sniffing the air?” It is an exaggeration of how much the people in Britain smokes and of course they do not smoke that much. “You can’t favour people blowing smoke in other people’s faces” line 11 page 6. You can not blow smoke in other peoples faces; it is an exaggeration of the smoking ban situation.

On one hand, I think the society has a responsibility on the smoking problem, and the only thing they can do is like Denmark and Britain have done, to forbid smoking in pubs, clubs and cafés and generally in the publicity. I think it is a good idea, because lots of people do smoke when they sit in a bar or in a café and it could maybe cause that some people forgot the smoking for a while. Some will maybe get annoyed of the ban, and quit smoking.
The society tries to do everything to help people who are smoking, there is medicine, which can help and there is institutions, where you can get some help. So, I think the society has done everything that they can; the rest is up to the individual to decide.
On the other hand, I think it is up to the individual to decide, whether you want to die maybe 20 or 30 years before other peoples, who don’t smoke.

I think the problem is that lots of people think that they are smart when they smoke, and they do not think at their healthy. The consequences comes later in their life, they will maybe get cancer or other disease, just because of smoking. I have also heard, that lots of people think smoking is like a culture and just for fun, but they don’t know that you can be addicted by cigarettes, and then it is not for fun any longer

I’m also seeing another problem with smoking, and it is the resources. The society use lots of resources on people who smokes. For instants the medicine, the institutions and the import of

cigarettes to the country are resources and I think it is waste of money in the end. If no one smoked, how much could the society save? There are lots of ethically and morally questions about smoking
and some of them is tried to be answered of me. The rest is up to the society and the individual to decide. So the conclusion is that do not begin to smoking, because it can kill you 20-30 years before the right time. Otherwise, it will give you health problems like cancer and other disease, when you get old.